BATTLEFIELD BRUSSELS: #Adoption without Consent – Our Recommendations for #EUInstitutions and #UKGovernment as Solutions

This is the document that you can send to your MEP – as the basis of complaining about your case. It is a response to the 72-page report commissioned in response of petitions from the UK. And here is a 2-page nutshell version.

Adoption without Consent

Critique of the Study[1] requested by the Committee on Petitions for the EU Parliament
In the Context of Petition 1707/2013 to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent[2]


Summary. 1

The Fundamental Charter of Human Rights of the European Union. 2

EU Politics. 2

Child Snatching as the Prerequisite Necessary for Forced Adoptions. 3

EU Directive 2011/92 on combating Child Sexual Abuse. 3

The Right to Petition. 4

The UK Judiciary. 5

UK Policy. 5

The Real Lives of Victims, Survivors, Whistleblowers and Advocates. 5

Institutional Abuse Victims and the National Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. 7

The Study’s Recommendations. 8

Our Recommendations. 8


  • It is to be applauded that the Policy Department on Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs commissioned this study in response to petitions from the UK. I list 12 petitions in the emergency petition submitted on 07.0315. It was appended to Petition 1707/2013 and is waiting to be heard:
  • The study is an excellent overview from an academic and political perspective. It explains and illustrates the good intentions of law and policy makers. However, it assumes that responsible actors follow and implement these not only by the letter but also in spirit, which in our experience is far from reality.
  • The study also assumes that ‘mainstream research’ is superior to mainstream media reports and the real lives of real victims of initial ‘child snatching’ and eventual adoptions decided in the secrecy in UK family courts and the Court of Protection.
  • To doubt the ‘appropriateness’ of parents fleeing the UK to give birth to their children who otherwise risk being taken, is a most unfortunate bias which does not represent any empathy with mother or family, let alone the child. Again, we know enough people personally to counter this attitude.
  • Furthermore, the study ignores a number of principles and aspects regarding fundamental EU principles.

The Fundamental Charter of Human Rights of the European Union[4]

  • “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.”
  • This is blatantly not being practised, as the Committee Chair Cecilia Wikstrom MEP said in this BBC film: Adoption – Thousands of Children forcibly taken into care[5].
  • An excessive number of children are taken into care in the UK: 1,000 a month or one child every 20 minutes – as documented by Channel IV: 15,000 Kids and Counting[6] – while only some 4% end up being adopted.
  • 6,500 non-UK children were taken into UK care over a five-year period as an approximation of the real statistics, since many councils did not respond to this privately initiated report[7].

EU Politics

  • In regard to whether other countries allow adoption without consent, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) covered this issue in its March 2015 report Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States[8]:
  • Adoptions without the consent of the parents are not possible in France, Greece, Luxembourg and Spain. They are rare (practiced only exceptionally) in: Cyprus, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Switzerland and Canada [the last three listed are not members of the EU]. In some countries which proscribe adoptions without the consent of the parents {for example, in Russia [not an EU but a CoE member]}, the child can be given up for adoption if his/her parents are unknown, legally incapable or if their whereabouts have been recognised as unknown by a court. They are possible in Andorra, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia [not an EU member], Germany (in 2010, 250 children were placed for adoption without the parents’ consent), Hungary, Italy, Montenegro [not an EU member], Norway [not an EU member], Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey [not an EU member], and the United Kingdom (in 2013, 3,020 children were placed for adoption without the parents’ consent).
  • Adoption without consent would include abandoned babies whose parents could not be found in countries like Russia (above). Forced adoption refers to parents putting up active resistance in the courts against adoption FORCED on them by judges in secret courts.
  • The UK is still the ONLY country in Europe where forced adoption is official government policy and the ONLY country in the world from which hundreds of pregnant mothers flee every year to avoid forced adoption of their babies by taking refuge with our more civilised neighbours like France, Spain and Ireland. No adoption stats at all seem to be available apart from those supplied by UK and Germany who began this practice under Adolf Hitler’s Lebensborn.
  • If anyone still has doubts the question is: How can anyone justify taking babies at birth from sane non-criminal mothers for “risk of emotional abuse”? One of the worst cases is: Caesarean case mother: Italian government to step into Alessandra Pacciero adoption battle[9]

Child Snatching as the Prerequisite Necessary for Forced Adoptions

EU Directive 2011/92 on combating Child Sexual Abuse

  • The latest case that we have accompanied is exceptional and extreme in terms of the number of child victims (20) and child witnesses (2) and abusers (70+) committing very serious crimes[14]. Hence we submitted an emergency petition in March 2015. It does not seem to have been taken into account by the author, although it was appended to 1707/2013:
  • We also submitted a folder with a Crime Report[16] and the Discrepancies between EU Directive 2011/92 and UK Family Courts[17] to VP Frans Timmermans[18] who promised to come back to me.
  • The levels and depths of institutional cover-ups[19] are an admission of the allegations made by the then 8- and 9-year-old child victims and witnesses who are still in care which is hardly in their best interests. On 15 July 2015 they are expected to be handed to the father whom they accuse – after 10 months separation from their mother. They only spoke out after years of abuse due to his threat of killing them, if they did. Their video testimonies[20] and nightmares whilst in care confirm this traumatisation.
  • The internet community that High Court Judge Mrs Justice Pauffley labelled as ‘evil and / or foolish’ in her judgement[21] has produced remarkable evidence about the online presence[22] of the 70+ abusers that demonstrates the desperateness with which the Establishment tries to cover-up instead of admitting to its failures.
  • An Infringement Notice[23] was issued against the UK Government in January 2014 for violating EU Directive 2011/2013[24] on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Neither we as citizens nor an MP on behalf of a constituent succeeded in finding out about the stage and the process of this Notice.

The Right to Petition

  • With this submission we attempt to redress the apparent bias and political basis of the Study: in September 2013 John Hemming MP ‘bagged’ the petition Children Placed in Foster Care[25] addressing the UK Parliament. It was published in Hansard but we never received a response.
  • After Petition 1707/2013 was presented on 19.03.14, Lincoln Council arrested the Portuguese couple[26] whose five children were taken without paper work and Carmarthenshire Council penalised a Welsh father, as formulated by this Early Day Motion[27] tabled by former MP John Hemming. The accusation by Lincoln Police was ‘belonging to the Forced Adoption group’!
  • This Memo[28] written by the previous UK Secretary of the Petitions Committee expresses beautifully what petitioning should mean for EU citizens and how it should be practised in a participatory democracy.

The UK Judiciary

  • Unique to the UK are five characteristics[29] in care proceedings that include secrecy in Family Courts and the Court of Protection. Secrecy is supposed to protect the identity of children, while their photos are being advertised for adoption so that birth parents can see their children ‘up for sale’.
  • The Court of Protection is used for parents losing their children on the basis not to have ‘mental capacity’ to care for them – which ought to have been questioned in a lot of cases.
  • Also unique to the UK are ‘gagging orders’, i.e. forbidding parents to complain about their case. When violated, parents are punished by imprisonment – already 200 times a year in 2006 – as admitted by Harriet Harman MP in Parliament[30].
  • Examples are this Position Statement[31] by Barnet Council and this Penal Notice[32] by supposedly High Court judge Justice Pauffley [the signature is missing]- the reason for my leaving the UK, my country of residence since 1981, for fear of arrest and threat of imprisonment.
  • Finally the real problem is the lack of public accountability: who polices the police and who judges the judges when the Judiciary is independent and judgements are up to the ‘discretion of individual judges’, while Royal Charters[33] offer a ticket to immunity from prosecution?

UK Policy

  • Former MP John Hemming, Chairman of Justice for Families[34] writes: There were some children adopted in the year to March 2014 who were taken into care because of low parental income. Under 5 children, however. Although national adoption targets stopped as adoption targets in 2006, it continued as a permanence target until 2008. The figures as to bonuses paid to local authorities under Public Service Agreements[35] are in the public domain and the fact cannot be disputed.
  • Councils get £30m fund to speed up adoption searches[36] is a recent article that illustrates how the adoption process is an accepted part of the child processing industry.

The Real Lives of Victims, Survivors, Whistleblowers and Advocates

  • Children, parents and relatives are suffering serious emotional, physical, financial and legal abuse and severe traumatisation at all stages of institutionalised and legalised child care and protection.
    • Despite Sir James Munby’s exemplary judgements[44] and reforms, babies keep being taken at birth.
    • Police and Social Services are taking children – often without any documentation – as with the Portuguese family[45] whose five children were taken after one supposedly reported abuse. The two youngest ones have been ordered to be adopted. The father has tried to take his life twice.
    • Fabricated evidence of criminal activities is dealt with in secret family courts: in the Nigerian Musa case[46] as well as the Hampstead Scandal[47].
    • After unlawful imprisonment foreign parents end up being deported, while their children are being kept in the UK, as with US mother Melissa Laird[48].
    • Vicky Haigh[49] was the first high profile case named in Parliament. She was imprisoned for having said ‘hello’ to her daughter when meeting her by chance at a petrol station. She sums up her conclusions of a whole portfolio of mothers whose children were given to their abusive fathers in a radio show. Her daughter had said: “Daddy does something to me he shouldn’t and now I can’t see Mummy.”
      1. Parents are imprisoned for breaching gagging orders;
      2. Social Services are taking children at birth;
  • Judges hand abused children to the abusive father;
  1. Children are NOT being listened to;
  2. Mothers are not listened to;
  3. Sexual Abuse should NOT be handled by SECRET family courts, as it is a CRIME.

Institutional Abuse Victims and the National Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

  1. The charity Children Screaming to be Heard[67] would not have been set up by a grandmother if she had felt that her grandson was being treated in his best interest despite his protests.

The Study’s Recommendations

  • To enhance greater understanding among member countries is of course most commendable.
  • Even more commendable are the recommendations to the UK Government, in particular:
    • To provide adequate financial and human resources also in times of austerity, especially to prevent children being taken into public care;
    • To communicate in their own language with their family;
    • To recognise the importance of transparency in the family justice system, including open and public debate in the media and
    • Allowing parents to express their views publicly.
  • However, expressing their views is not enough when parents take their lives because their children were taken from them: Another parent takes her own life after having children stolen by Social Services[68].

Our Recommendations

  • “The child’s best interest” is a catchall phrase coined by those who benefit – in terms of ‘perks’ in the form of sex, money, career or any combination thereof – without caring for the traumatisation caused by parental separation and alienation as a guarantee for ensuing psychological and mental health problems.
  • Given our experiences with hundreds and thousands of cases between us, we therefore feel that the following is important:
    • Regarding child snatching as policy and the resulting high frequency:
      1. To STOP rewarding Councils for separating children from their birth parents;
      2. To START rewarding Councils for implementing respite, counselling, therapy and home help first.
    • Regarding adoptions forced upon parents by judges against their will:
      1. To follow the Australian model and apologise for unjust and unjustified adoptions;
      2. To facilitate contact with birth parents after adoption;
  • To make adoptions reversible by listening to the children and letting them decide.
  • Regarding survivors of institutional, organised and orchestrated abuse:
    1. To ensure that the National Inquiry delivers what it promises.
    2. To STOP whistleblowers[69] from being harassed, bullied, tortured and persecuted;
  • To START procedures to ensure that whistleblowers like myself are not only protected but encouraged and empowered to come forward.
  1. That today’s child victims who become tomorrow’s witnesses are already listened to now – as suggested by the Channel IV program on ritual abuse in 1990: Listen to the Children![70]
  • Regarding international treaties and jurisdiction:
    1. To set up Monitoring Agencies such as Ethics and Justice Panels[71] so that the independence of the Judiciary and the ‘discretion of individual judges’ can be counteracted.
  • Our assertions are based on the experience of assisting victims as litigants in person at different stages in their process of losing their child(ren). As the Association of McKenzie Friends (lay legal advisors) we had the ‘privilege’ of having assisted the worst of all cases – worst in terms of number of child victims involved, punishment of mother and child for having violated ‘gagging orders’, children adopted for not valid reasons and custody over children being handed to abusive parents.
  • It is hoped that MEPs will be sufficiently shocked that they will do everything within their powers to STOP the snatching and adopting without consent in progress every day.
  • 3,020 children a year means 12 children per working day. Gone for good from their birth parents’ lives. For ever, while it is well researched that most adults will look for their roots and birth parents.
  • It is also hoped that MEPs will START bringing healing and resolution to those people whose lives were ruined by UK authorities defending their actions with “policy” and “just doing my job”.
  • Finally, it is hoped that this response creates greater awareness of the real challenge: how the EU is making paedophilia legal across Europe[72]. The article spelled out in 2009 what we are now observing:
  • Attempts to legalise paedophilia[77] are numerous and international. In the EU, the Lisbon Treaty would provide the loophole.
  • Would a European Court for Child Rights be a necessary and desirable solution?

Written by Sabine K McNeill with significant input from other McKenzie Friends















































































About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Acting as McKenzie Friend, Public Interest Advocacy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to BATTLEFIELD BRUSSELS: #Adoption without Consent – Our Recommendations for #EUInstitutions and #UKGovernment as Solutions

  1. Pingback: SAVE THE #HampsteadChildren “We The People to you the system” #WhistleblowerKids | A Battle for Britain's Children and others' Human Rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s